0 Votes +0 Votes -

104 vues9 pagesJul 06, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

104 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Stock Market Forecasting Techniques a Survey
- Managerial Accounting Creating Value in a Dynamic Business Environment 11Th Ed by Hilton – Test Bank
- Nodal Analysis
- Practical Gas Lift Manual
- Predicting Excess Stock Returns Out of Sample
- prediction of digestible energy for animal feed
- 10 Nodal System Analysis of Oil and Gas Wells
- 1- Nodal Analysis
- AF 2009 V49N2 223
- Forecast
- Gas Lift
- production_optimization
- A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables - Bass
- A Novel Multiple Linear Regression Model for Forecasting S-Curves
- Flowing Well Performance
- Nodal Analysis- Based Design for Improving Gas Lift Wells Production
- Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic Nodal Analysis
- SSRN-id1987160
- Kappa
- Presentation 2

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations

Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2831 March 1999.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300

words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

This work presents a numerical algorithm that permits the

production optimization of gas wells using the concept of

dynamic nodal analysis. By combining the desirable features

of nodal analysis, material balance technique and decline curve

analysis, the method is able to match the historical

performance of the well data. It is also able to predict the

future performance of the gas well under the existing condition

as well as altered conditions. The proposed technique, which

has several advantages over the classical nodal analysis, can be

used for the selection of the timing and capacity of surface

compressor, the evaluation of the economic viability of a well

stimulation, and the understanding of the effect of individual

production component on the productivity of a gas well over

the life of that well.

Introduction

The production optimization of a gas well requires an

appropriate selection of the individual components in the

production system. Currently nodal analysis is used to

accomplish this task. Nodal analysis involves calculating the

pressure drop in individual components within the production

system so that pressure value at a given node in the production

system (e.g., bottom hole pressure) can be calculated from

both ends (separator and reservoir) [See Figure 1]. The rate at

which pressure is calculated at the node from both ends must

be the same

1,2,3

. This is the rate at which the well produces.

Once the rate under existing conditions is obtained, by

adjusting individual components, the sensitivity of individual

components on the overall production can be investigated;

Hence an optimum selection of components can be obtained at

a given time. The major drawback of the conventional nodal

analysis is that it only provides the user with a snapshot picture

of the well production. It does not provide any information as

to how the production will change as a function of time. For

example, if tubing size is changed, the nodal analysis may

provide the best tubing size at present time; however, it may

not be able to indicate which tubing size is the best over the

life of the well based on the future production. Even

generating future inflow performance curves (which

characterize how the reservoir will behave in the future at

discrete times) may not help since we will not be able to

estimate how the rate has changed over the time intervals.

To include the effect of time on the production

performance, the most commonly used technique is the decline

curve analysis. Decline curve analysis involves matching the

prior production data using one of the decline types

(exponential, hyperbolic or harmonic), and using the estimated

decline parameters, predicting the future performance under

existing conditions. Decline curve analysis is a very powerful

tool, and has been used extensively to predict the future

performance by ignoring the effects of tubing size, choke,

surface pipeline or other components in the production system.

In addition, although it is true that decline curve analysis can

predict the future performance under existing conditions, it

may not predict how the well will behave in future if the

production conditions are altered. These alterations include,

for example, changing skin factor, changing choke size, or

changing the surface compressor.

Conventional material balance technique which uses

diagnostic plots have also been proven to be useful in

understanding the behavior of the gas wells. These plots, for

example, include P/Z (reservoir pressure over compressibility

factor) versus gas production to predict how much gas the well

will eventually produce. These techniques can also account

for, through a trial and error procedure, the presence of water

influx. The drawback of the material balance technique is that

it does not account for time. It can predict the production as a

function of reservoir pressure, but not as a function of time.

Further, it only accounts for reservoir component, and not for

any other component of the production system. The effect of

alterations on the gas well performance cannot be predicted

using the material balance technique. The inclusion of time in

terms of predicting the future performance is critical from

SPE 52170

Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic Nodal Analysis

A.B. Bitsindou, SPE, and M.G. Kelkar, SPE, The University of Tulsa

2 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR SPE 52170

economic point of view. This cannot be accomplished using

this technique.

To overcome the drawbacks presented in the above

methods, we need a technique which can:

Predict the future performance as a function of time in the

presence of various production components including the

reservoir.

Match the prior production data in the presence of various

production components so that the appropriate parameters

can be assigned for future production prediction. This is

similar to decline curve analysis except that we need to

include the production components in the system.

Quantify the uncertainties with respect to various

parameters ( e.g., reservoir permeability, skin factor,

tubing roughness, drainage area, the type of pressure drop

correlation) by generating alternate possibilities of

parameters which can match the production data.

Predict the future performance under existing conditions

as well as altered conditions to compare the production

scenarios in the future.

Quantify the uncertainty in predicting the future

performance which can be combined with the price of gas

to conduct a risk analysis.

Optimize the producing well configuration so that the net

profit over the life of the well is maximized.

The system considered in this work is shown in Figure 1. It

represents a single well producing from a gas reservoir up to

the separator. This system is divided into the following

completion and piping components:

reservoir

perforations

gravel pack

tubing

bottom hole device

subsurface safety valve (SSSV)

well head choke

surface pipeline

separator

Approach

This section explains the procedure used to combine the

important elements of the decline curve analysis, nodal

analysis and material balance technique.

Assumptions. The major assumptions made with respect to

the flow of gas in the reservoir and the piping system are:

The production system operates under pseudo-steady state

conditions. The well is flowing at a steady flow rate for a

fixed average reservoir pressure and separator pressure.

This implies that the gas well produces with a fixed

liquid/gas ratio.

The drainage mechanism of the reservoir is assumed to be

natural depletion mechanism.

The production exhibits a certain type of decline during

the period of time considered in the history match

computations. That decline can be exponential, hyperbolic

or harmonic according to the behavior of the reservoir

under consideration. This behavior is assessed by using

the decline curve analysis theory and the Fetkovich type

curve

4,5

.

For wet gas reservoir, it is assumed that the reservoir

pressure is above the dew point pressure. This assumption

implies that the flow is single-phase gas in the reservoir.

The well head pressure is reasonably constant throughout

the period of time considered for the history match.

Other limitations involved in this work depend on the type of

correlation selected to compute the pressure losses across the

individual component in the system.

History Match. The procedure used to compute the history

match is summarized in the following steps:

1. Assume that the production history is known. Thus, for

each observed production time T

obs1,

T

obs2,

, T

obs j

,,

T

obs n

,

the corresponding observed rate Q

obs1

, Q

obs2

, ,

Q

obsj,

, Q

obsn

is known.

2. Assume that at time T

j

the following data are known:

fluid properties as a function of pressure and

temperature

The type of decline (harmonic, hyperbolic or

exponential) as well as the rate of decline. If type

is not known, assume exponential decline.

The pressure drop correlations as a function of

rate for each Q.

3. The gas in place at this time T

j

is computed as:

G

V S

B

j

b g

gj

* *

(1)

where

V

b

= reservoir bulk volume

reservoir porosity

S

g

= gas saturation

B

gj

= gas formation volume factor at pressure P

j

4. Calculate the rate Q

j

at which the well will produce at P

j

.

This is done by using the nodal analysis technique. As

stated earlier, in this study the node is chosen at the

bottom hole. The nodal analysis technique is explained in

ref. 1, 2, 3.

SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 3

5. Assume a small decrement in reservoir pressure P

j

. The

new reservoir pressure is then P

j+1

= P

j

- P

j

. At this

reservoir pressure , calculate the new gas in place

1

* *

1

+

+

j

g

g b

j

B

S V

G

(2)

The total amount of gas produced when the reservoir

pressure decreases from P

j

to P

j+1

is:

1 +

j j

G G G (3)

6. Calculate the rate Q

j+1

at which the well will produce

under the present reservoir pressure P

j+1

. This is done by

nodal analysis.

7. Knowing the total amount of gas produced (G) and the

gas flow rate Q

j

and Q

j+1

at reservoir pressures P

j

and P

j+1

,

we can calculate the elapsed time T required to reach

that production

For exponential decline:

1

ln

1

+

j

j

Q

Q

D

T

(4)

1

1 1

+

+ +

j j

j j j j

G G

Q Q

G

Q Q

D

For harmonic decline:

[ ]

1

1

1

+

+

j

j j

Q

Q Q

D

T

(5)

1

ln

+

j

j j

Q

Q

G

Q

D

For hyperbolic decline:

1

1

]

1

,

_

+

b

j

j

Q

Q

D b

T

1

1 *

*

1

(6)

1

1

]

1

,

_

+

b

j

j j

Q

Q

G b

Q

D

1

1

1 *

* ) 1 (

The total calculated time when the reservoir pressure is P

j+1

can be calculated as:

T T T

j j

+

+1

8. Repeat the process from step 4 to step 7 until the total

calculated time is greater or equal to the observed

production time.

9. At this point, we have the model predicted timesT

1

, T

2

,

, T

j

, T

j+k

, and the corresponding rates:Q

1

, Q

2

, ,

Q

j

, , Q

j+k

, For each observed time T

obs j

, we calculate

the corresponding predicted rate Q

j

by interpolating the

model predicted rates. At this point, we check how the

calculated flow rate Q

j

compares with the historical

observed production rate Q

obs j

at the same time.

10. If the difference between the predicted and observed rates

is significant, a regression technique is used to adjust

some of the parameters and the procedure is repeated

(steps 3 - 9). The process terminates when a desirable

match between predicted and observed rates is achieved.

The regression analysis technique is discussed below:

Regression Analysis. The basic objective of using the non-

linear regression in this problem is to determine the optimum

set, , of reservoir/completion parameters such that the

observed data match as closely as possible to the calculated

data from the model.

In this study, the parameters on which the regression is

performed consist of any set of three variables chosen among

the following parameters: permeability, skin, radius of

drainage, pay, perforated interval, radius of perforations,

diameter of perforations, porosity, water saturation, and

density of perforations. For example, one can choose a set

such that parameters ={permeability, skin, radius of drainage}.

In this case the regression calculations will be performed on

the following variables: permeability, skin and radius of

drainage.

In this study, the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm

6,7

, has

been used. This algorithm has been selected because it does

not require to provide the derivatives of the functions to

minimize.

An obvious choice of objective function to minimize is the

difference between observed and predicted rates. However,

such choice will be sensitive to outlier data. Considering that

the observed rates fluctuate significantly, it is better to choose

an objective function which is more resistant to the outlier

data. In our work, we used a correlation coefficient between

observed rate and predicted rate as one of the matching

functions, and we also used a plot between observed and

predicted rates to have a slope of one, and the intercept of

zero. If average reservoir pressure data were available, we also

make sure that it matches with predicted average reservoir

pressures.

The Levenberg Marquardt algorithm

6,7

that we use is

unconstrained: i.e., variables can be chosen to minimize the

objective function with value between infinite. Obviously,

for our problem, we need to ensure that the values of the

variables lie in the predefined interval of uncertainty and that

these values are meaningful. For example we may want the

regressed permeability value to be between K

max

and K

min

. In

order to keep the values of the regression variables in certain

4 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR SPE 52170

predefined intervals, the imaging extension

6,7

procedure is

used.

Future Performance Prediction

1. The future performance of the well under the existing

conditions as well as under altered conditions can be

calculated. The procedure is the same as described from

step 2 to step 8 in the History Matching section. Repeat

the steps till an abandonment rate is reached.

2. Consider different scenarios for variations in production

procedures. These include, for example, changing the

number of perforations, stimulating the well, fracturing

the well, installing the compressor at the surface.

3. Predict the future performance under the new operating

conditions using the same procedure as explained in Step

1.

4. Repeat Step 3 for alternate combinations of input

parameters to quantify uncertainties in the prediction of

future performance.

5. Compare the performance under the new scenario with the

base case to calculate the incremental gas production as a

function of time.

6. Repeat step 5 for different input configuration.

7. Use information generated in step 5 and step 6 to study

the economic feasibility of making the changes in the

production configuration.

Results

This section presents the results obtained by applying the

dynamic nodal analysis technique to several production

systems. Those production systems include synthetic data as

well as actual field data. These results validate the dynamic

nodal analysis technique.

Synthetic Data

These synthetic data have been generated using the results

from a simulation of an actual field well. They represent a gas

condensate well which was open to production for five years.

The characteristics of the reservoir as well as the description of

the completion are summarized in Table 1.

History Match. The computer program was run with the

regression parameters selected to be radius of drainage, skin

and permeability. The result of the history match is shown in

Figure 2 and Table 2. As it can be seen, the predicted rate

matches very well with the observed data. Also, the predicted

reservoir pressure matches very well with the observed data

3

.

Several runs of the program were conducted in order to

assess the sensitivity of the history match with respect to errors

in the input historical production data. The results of these

run are shown in Figure 3. Again, the predicted rate matches

very well with the observed data. Also, the predicted reservoir

pressure matches very well with the observed data

3

.

Future Performance Simulations.

Future Performance Simulations for Different Skin Values.

In order to simulate the effect of a stimulation job (acidizing,

fracturation,..) on the performance of the well, the program has

been run with different skin factors. The skin of 116.5, 50 and

0.0 has been used in the forecast computations. The results of

this sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure 4.

The improvement of the well performance as the skin factor is

reduced is clearly displayed on the graph. The forecast

performance declines faster as the skin is lower. For example

the decline rate corresponding to skin 0.0 is greater than the

one corresponding to skin 116.5. This is due to the fact that the

removal of the skin does not increase the reserves, but

accelerates the gas recovery.

Field case

Case #1: Dry Gas Well Producing at a Constant Well

Head Pressure. This field case represents a dry gas well, open

to production since 1989. It has been produced at a constant

well head pressure. The initial reservoir pressure is estimated

to be 2083 psia.

History Match. The computer program was run with the

regression parameters selected to be radius of drainage, skin

and permeability. The results of the history match are shown in

Figure 5 and Figure 6. An excellent production history match

is obtained. The reservoir pressure history match is also in

very good agreement with the observed field data. The

calculated values of the regressed parameters as well as the

observed values based on well test of those parameters are

shown in Table 3. The skin exhibits a good agreement

between the observed value and the calculated value from well

test. The permeability and radius of drainage calculated from

the program are higher than the corresponding observed

values. This may be due to the fact that the actual reservoir

drive mechanism may not be exactly natural depletion. Some

other mechanism such as compaction drive may contribute to

the actual reservoir mechanism. The change in rate observed at

time 750 days is simply due to a well head pressure

perturbation that was very limited in time.

Future Performance Prediction Using Different Well Head

Pressure Values. Different runs of the program were

conducted at various well head pressures to simulate the effect

of the installation of a compressor on the future performance

of the producing system. Well head pressure values of 870

psia, 700 psia, 500 psia, 300 psia, and 100 psia were used in

the forecast computations. The well was producing at a well

head pressure of 870 psia. The results of these simulations are

shown in Figure 7. As can be seen, the well performance

improves as the well head pressure decreases. However the

increase in flow rate is not linearly related to the decrease in

the well head pressure. For example, the gain in flow rate

obtained from reducing the well head pressure from 870 psia

SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 5

to 700 psia is about 2400 Mscf/D, whereas the increase in the

well performance is only 500 Mscf/D when the well head

pressure is reduced from 300 to 100 psia. This sensitivity

analysis is useful to the engineer in the process of deciding

whether or not to install a compressor and under what

optimum conditions it can be operated.

Future Performance Prediction for Different Density of

Perforation. In order to assess the sensitivity of the density of

perforations on the well performance, the program was run

with different values of perforation densities. Perforation

densities of 4 spf, 8 spf and 12 spf are used in the forecast

computations. The overbalanced perforation mode is used. The

well is actually perforated overbalanced with a perforation

density of 4 spf. The results of the simulations are summarized

in Figure 8. As can be seen, the well performance improves

slightly as the perforation density increases. However the gain

in flow rate remains marginal compared to those obtained by

reducing the well head pressure (by installing a compressor for

example).

Case #2: Conversion of the Original Data from Constant

Flow Rate to Constant Well Head Pressure. This field case

represents a condensate gas production system. The well, open

to production since 1989, exhibits a very high condensate yield

of 145 BBL/MMscf. The initial reservoir pressure is 5011

psia. The PVT analysis estimates the dew point pressure at

5025 psia. The decline curve analysis indicates that the well

produces with exponential decline.

In order to use the computer program presented in this

work, it is required that the well head pressure be reasonably

constant during the period of time considered in the history

match computations. Case #2 does not satisfy this requirement

as it is producing with constant rate but not with constant well

head pressure. For this well, the data were converted from

constant rate to equivalent constant well head pressure. The

conversion equation used is the following:

[ ]

[ ]

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

WF R

WF R

P P

P P

Q

Q

(7)

Q

1

is the actual constant flow rate corresponding to the

flowing bottom hole pressure P

wf1

. Since Q

1

and P

wf1

are

known, the flow rate Q

2

can be computed by assuming a fixed

value of the corresponding bottom hole pressure P

wf2

.

This conversion technique works well if the total reservoir

pressure decline is small during the time period considered for

history match calculations, and the reservoir is producing

under pseudo-steady state conditions.

History Match. The computer program was run with the

regression parameters selected to be radius of drainage, skin

and permeability. The results obtained are presented in

Figure 9 and Figure 10. An excellent production history

match is obtained. The reservoir pressure history match is also

very good.

The calculated values of the regressed parameters as well

as the estimated values (from well test) of those parameters are

shown in Table 4.

The regressed value of the permeability agrees with the

value obtained from well test. The predicted radius of drainage

is greater than the observed drainage radius. This is probably

due to the fact that the computer program uses volumetric

drive mechanism and it has been documented that the reservoir

drive mechanism for case #2 is not volumetric

3

.

Future Performance Prediction Using Different Perforated

Interval Values. In order to assess the sensitivity of the well

performance with respect to the perforated interval, the

program is run with different values of perforated interval.

Perforated interval values of 17 ft and 64 ft are used in the

forecast computations. The actual perforated interval of the

well is 17 ft. The results of the simulations are summarized in

Figure 11.

As it can be seen, the well performance increases as the

perforated interval increases.

Future Performance Prediction Using Different Tubing

Inside Diameter Values. Different runs of the program were

conducted with various tubing inside diameter values in order

to simulate the effect of the recompletion of the well with

different tubing size. Tubing inside diameter values of 1.995,

1.049 and 2.441 have been used in the forecast

computations. The results of these simulations are shown in

Figure 12. As can be seen, the well production life is extended

as the tubing size is reduced. For example for tubing sizes of

1.995 and 2.441, the well dies respectively after 2184 days

and 8544 days of production for liquid loading. However the

life of the well is extended well beyond 12000 days when it is

completed with a tubing of 1.049 inside diameter.

Conclusions

Dynamic nodal analysis technique allows to perform sensitivity

analysis of future performance for gas wells once a satisfactory

match of the past production performance is obtained. The major

contribution of this work is that it provides a tool to analyze the

well performance changes as a function of time when the

production parameters are altered. The classic nodal analysis can

only be used if the production parameters remained unchanged.

The dynamic nodal analysis provides valuable means to help the

engineer in decisions making. Opening a gas well to production

always involves considerable expenses whereas a model can be

run many times at lower cost to try many different possible

scenarios in order to make technical and economical decisions.

It should be noted that the prediction of the future performance

based on history match of well performance is not unique. There

are many other sets of system parameters that can match the past

performance of the well. There is always some uncertainty

associated to the model used to arrive at a satisfactory historical

performance match. Based upon the history match results, the

engineer can obtain a range of future performances, and hence

can make a decision in light of uncertainties.

6 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR SPE 52170

The computer program presented in this paper is capable of

history matching the production data as well as predicting the

future performance under different scenarios. The program has

been validated with the help of both synthetic and field data. The

program provides a logical improvement to conventional nodal

analysis.

Nomenclature

b = decline exponent for hyperbolic decline behavior.

B

g

= gas formation volume factor, cf/scf

= reservoir porosity

G = gas in place, Mscf

G = gas in place decrease, Mscf

P = pressure, psia.

P = pressure drop, psia

Q = gas flow rate, Mscf/D

Q

obs

= observed flow rate, Mscf/D

S

g

= gas saturation, fraction

T = temperature, R

T

obs

= Observed production Time, days

T = elapsed time, days

V

b

= reservoir bulk volume, Mscf

set of 3 independent regression variables

Subscript

g = gas

R = reservoir

WF = at bottom hole in well flowing conditions

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the University of Tulsa for provinding the

computer facilities used to conduct this study. They also express

their gratitude to Dr Leslie G. Thompson of the University of

Tulsa, and Stuart Cox of Marathon Oil Co. for their comments

and suggestions. They are also grateful to Marathon Oil Co. for

providing the field data used during the test of the computer

program.

References

1. Brown, K.E. et al.: The technology of artificial lift methods,

Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK (1984), volume 4.

2. Perez, G. and Kelkar, B.G.: A Simplified Method to Predict

Over-all Production Performance, Journal of Canadian Petroleum

Technology, January-February, 1990, Volume 29, No. 1.

3. Bitsindou, A.: Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic

Nodal Analysis, M.S. thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK

(1998).

4. Fetkovich, M.J., Fetkovich, E.J. and Fetkovich, M.D.: Useful

Concepts for Decline-Curve Forecasting, Reserve Estimation, and

Analysis, paper SPE 28628 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual

Technical Conference and exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28.

5. Fetkovich, M.J.: Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,

JPT, June 1980, 1065-1077.

6. Carvalho, R. Thompson, L.G., Redner, R. and Reynolds, A.C.:

Simple Procedure for Imposing Constraints for Nonlinear Least

Square Optimization, paper SPE 29582.

7. Carvalho, R.: Nonlinear Regression: Application to Well Test

Analysis, PhD Dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK

(1993).

Table 1-SYNTHETIC DATA: INPUT PARARMETERS

Type of decline = exponential

Pressure decrement [psia] = 50

Optimization tolerance = 0.000001

Reservoir

Initial pressure [psia] = 5011

Initial temperature [F] = 212

Pay [ft] = 64.5

Skin = 116.5

Drainage radius [ft] = 9108

Permeability [md] = 11

Porosity [fraction] = 0.06

Water saturation [fraction] = 0.533

Fluid properties

Specific gravity of produced gas = 0.646

Oil density [API] = 51.1

Specific gravity of produced water = 1.0

Completion

Hole diameter [in] = 8.496

Casing diameter [in] = 5

Perforated interval [ft] = 17

Perforation diameter [in] = 0.36

Perforation tunnel length [in] = 12.33

Perforation density [SPF] = 4

Mode of perforation = overbalance

Tubing inside diameter [in] = 1.945

Tubing roughness [ft] = 0.00015

Tubing length [ft] = 8688.0

Hole inclination angle [degree] = 90

Pressure drop correlation: Beggs and Brill

Production

Oil/Gas ratio, [SBBLO/MMscf] = 145.0

Water/Gas ratio, [SBBLW/MMscf] = 0.0

Well head pressure, [psia] = 2250.0

Well head temperature, [F] = 111.0

Reference separator pressure, [psia] = 14.7

Reference separator temperature, [deg F] = 60.0

Limits of regression parameters

KMIN [md] = 0.0 KMAX [md] = 100.0

SMIN = -5.0 SMAX = 175.0

reMIN [ft] = 2500.0 reMAX [ft] = 10000.0

SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 7

TABLE 2-HISTORY MATCH FOR SYNTHETIC DATA

Regression

parameters

Calculated

value

Initial

value

Comment

Permeability [md] 11.05 10.8 From well test

Skin 116.45 101 From well test

Drainage radius [ft] 9107.8 2500.0 Estimated

TABLE 3-HISTORY MATCH FOR CASE #1

Regression

parameters

Calculated

value

Initial

value

Comment

Permeability [md] 32.9 24 From well test

Skin 4.1 6.4 From well test

Drainage radius [ft] 4532.7 1000.0 Estimated

TABLE 4-HISTORY MATCH FOR CASE #2

Regression

parameters

Calculated

value

Initial

value

Comment

Permeability [md] 12.9 10.8 From well test

Skin 147.0 101 From well test

Drainage radius [ft] 9204.8 2500.0 Estimated

Fig. 1-System description and pressure losses.

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate

Predicted rate

Fig. 2-Synthetic data: production history match.

8 ARSENE B. BITSINDOU, M.G. KELKAR SPE 52170

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

d

]

Observed data [after adding errors between

-10% and +10% to the original data]

Predicted rate [No error added to the

original data]

Predicted rate [after adding errors between

-10% and +10% to the original data]

Fig.3-Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate history match with respect

to errors in the observed rate data.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate

History match [skin=116.5]

Skin=116.5

Skin=50.0

Skin=0.0

Fig. 4-Synthetic data: sensitivity of rate with respect to skin

factor.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

{

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate

Predicted rate

Fig. 5-Case #1: production history match.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Time [days]

R

e

s

e

r

v

o

i

r

P

r

e

s

s

u

r

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed reservoir pressure

Predicted reservoir pressure

Fig. 6-Case #1:reservoir pressure history match.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]

Predicted rate [Well head pressure = 870 psia]]

Well head pressure= 870 psia

Well head pressure = 700 psia

Well head pressure = 500 psia

Well head pressure = 300 psia

Well head pressure= 100 psia

Fig. 7-Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to well head

pressure.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate [SPF=4]

Predicted rate [SPF=4]

SPF=4

SPF=8

SPF=12

Fig. 8-Case #1: sensitivity of rate with respect to perforation

density.

SPE 52170 GAS WELL PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING DYNAMIC NODAL ANALYSIS 9

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate

Predicted rate

Fig. 9-Case #2: production history match.

4650

4700

4750

4800

4850

4900

4950

5000

5050

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time [days]

R

e

s

e

r

v

o

i

r

P

r

e

s

s

u

r

e

[

p

s

i

a

]

Predicted reservoir pressure

Observed reservoir pressure

Fig. 10-Case #2: reservoir pressure history match.

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate [Perforated interval= 17 ft]

History match [Perforated interval= 17 ft]

Perforated interval= 17 ft

Perforated interval= 64 ft

Fig. 11-Case #2: sensitivity of rate with respect to perforated

interval.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Time [days]

R

a

t

e

[

M

s

c

f

/

D

]

Observed rate [tubing size = 1.995 in.]

Predicted rate [Tubing size = 1.995 in.]

Tubing size = 1.049 in.

Tubing size = 1.995 in.

Tubing size = 2.441 in.

Fig. 12-Case #2: sensitivity of rate with respect to tubing inside

diameter.

- Stock Market Forecasting Techniques a SurveyTransféré paree8
- Managerial Accounting Creating Value in a Dynamic Business Environment 11Th Ed by Hilton – Test BankTransféré parshaista.aziz
- Nodal AnalysisTransféré parSon Nguyen Tuan
- Practical Gas Lift ManualTransféré parJorge Alberto Quiza Polania
- Predicting Excess Stock Returns Out of SampleTransféré parmirando93
- prediction of digestible energy for animal feedTransféré parhanahatake
- 10 Nodal System Analysis of Oil and Gas WellsTransféré parSultan_Mehmood_7287
- 1- Nodal AnalysisTransféré parweldsv1
- AF 2009 V49N2 223Transféré parAbeerAlgebali
- ForecastTransféré pariamlelei
- Gas LiftTransféré parashrafsaber
- production_optimizationTransféré parfannybuster
- A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables - BassTransféré parStephanie Lamy
- A Novel Multiple Linear Regression Model for Forecasting S-CurvesTransféré parMaher Al Ajam
- Flowing Well PerformanceTransféré parTogoumas Djide
- Nodal Analysis- Based Design for Improving Gas Lift Wells ProductionTransféré parSeth Cheatham
- Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic Nodal AnalysisTransféré parSimon Chukwuka Ogbuji
- SSRN-id1987160Transféré parklj4718
- KappaTransféré parAvinash_Negi_7301
- Presentation 2Transféré parManish Singh
- 581 hm#3Transféré parVivienneZhang
- CB Predictor ManualTransféré parEduardo Ramirez
- Dynamic Production System Nodal AnalysisTransféré parTopiksarip05
- Gas Well Production Optimization Using Dynamic Nodal AnalysisTransféré parTopiksarip05
- Risk Assessment and Prediction of Rock Fragmentation Produced by Blasting Operation a Rock Engineering SystemTransféré parW N Nan Fajar
- Forecasting Principles and Practice + FootnotesTransféré pargoncalves_alexandre
- [Carl L. Pritchard PMP PMI-RMP EVP] Risk Manage(Z-lib.org)[251-257]Transféré parLuisFernandoValencia
- 6db7f9c1930a16d56c3aa89d265227900c1bTransféré parHaftu Hadush
- applying neural network to predict nba team recordsTransféré parapi-448507449
- 10-QUANTITATIVE-TECHNIQUES-IN-FORECASTING-Lei-Fernandez.pptxTransféré parDioselle Estopacia Cayabyab

- Suncue-dryer Pulse DryerTransféré parakendraverma
- Neutral ZoneTransféré parswapnildental
- Derrick's Opposition to DemurrerTransféré parAltis Peoples
- WattMeter.pdfTransféré parEngr Mohammed Aqeel Khan
- midsemster portfolioTransféré parapi-281364463
- ITL3Transféré parVerts Servces
- 08102102Transféré parNour El-Din Safwat
- ManmedCh16 - Copy - CopyTransféré parDaryl Irwin
- Ahrefs Cookies (1)Transféré parLaura Moreno Ruiz
- Ece IV Microcontrollers [10es42] AssignmentTransféré parkirannrg
- Book1Transféré parAlphatech1
- Algebra Homework Set 3 Hung Tran. 4.1.7 a.if x,y ∈Transféré parthp343
- Standard-triumph-Vanguard_1950s_Triumph Renown Owners HandbookTransféré parcoutinholopes
- Optical Sensors With Special Properties1Transféré parCsaba Varga
- Bionics - National GeographicTransféré parN FL
- réarrangement radicalaireTransféré parRaf Belo
- Transistors_Final.pptxTransféré parOutofbox
- [国际之家豪华精选版].International.Homes.Luxury.Collection.Vol.17.No.4Transféré parlethanhkhiem
- 1-4-Ppt-AnalysisTransféré parFawad Ahmad
- Pen testing iPhone iPad iOS applicationsTransféré parDhiraj Patil
- PP-2001-06Transféré parfranciscocampoverde8224
- Past TenseTransféré parAyiSariRahmaDewi
- TIM15001 R2.0 VU TEN I1 Student GuideTransféré parBen Duong
- Bitumin CarrierTransféré parNeeraj Kumar
- ISO 9001, IsO 14001, And New Management StandardsTransféré parPassanai
- GeneralTechnicalEnglish.pdfTransféré parRahul kumar
- 48th International Symposium ELMAR-2006, 07-09 June 2006,Transféré parshamarapur
- NIOS hospitalitymgmt.pdfTransféré parDASARATHI_PRAVEEN
- AnionsTransféré parAnish Rao
- GMAT Practice QuestionsTransféré parwithravi

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.